"So he won. The nation takes a deep breath. Raw ego and proud illiteracy have won out, and a severely learning-disabled man with a real character problem will be president. We are so exhausted from thinking about this election, millions of people will take up leaf-raking and garage cleaning with intense pleasure. We liberal elitists are wrecks. The Trumpers had a whale of a good time, waving their signs, jeering at the media, beating up protesters, chanting “Lock her up” — we elitists just stood and clapped. Nobody chanted “Stronger Together.” It just doesn’t chant.

The Trumpers never expected their guy to actually win the thing, and that’s their problem now. They wanted only to whoop and yell, boo at the H-word, wear profane T-shirts, maybe grab a crotch or two, jump in the RV with a couple six-packs and go out and shoot some spotted owls. It was pleasure enough for them just to know that they were driving us wild with dismay — by “us,” I mean librarians, children’s authors, yoga practitioners, Unitarians, bird-watchers, people who make their own pasta, opera goers, the grammar police, people who keep books on their shelves, that bunch. The Trumpers exulted in knowing we were tearing our hair out. They had our number, like a bratty kid who knows exactly how to make you grit your teeth and froth at the mouth.

Alas for the Trump voters, the disasters he will bring on this country will fall more heavily on them than anyone else. The uneducated white males who elected him are the vulnerable ones, and they will not like what happens next.

To all the patronizing B.S. we’ve read about Trump expressing the white working -class’s displacement and loss of the American Dream, I say, “Feh!” — go put your head under cold water. Resentment is no excuse for bald-faced stupidity. America is still the land where the waitress’ kids can grow up to become physicists and novelists and pediatricians, but it helps a lot if the waitress and her husband encourage good habits and the ambition to use your God-given talents and the kids aren’t plugged into electronics day and night. Whooping it up for the candidate of cruelty and ignorance does less than nothing for your kids.

We liberal elitists are now completely in the clear. The government is in Republican hands. Let them deal with him. Democrats can spend four years raising heirloom tomatoes, meditating, reading Jane Austen, traveling around the country, tasting artisan beers, and let the Republicans build the wall and carry on the trade war with China and deport the undocumented and deal with opioids, and we Democrats can go for a long , brisk walk and smell the roses.

I like Republicans. I used to spend Sunday afternoons with a bunch of them, drinking Scotch and soda and trying to care about NFL football. It was fun. I tried to think like them. (Life is what you make it. People are people. When the going gets tough, tough noogies.) But I came back to liberal elitism.

Don’t be cruel. Elvis said it, and it’s true. We all experienced cruelty back in our playground days — boys who beat up on the timid, girls who made fun of the homely and naive — and most of us, to our shame, went along with it, afraid to defend the victims lest we become one of them. But by your 20s, you should be done with cruelty. Mr. Trump was the cruelest candidate since George Wallace. How he won on fear and bile is for political pathologists to study. The country is already tired of his noise, even his own voters. He is likely to become the most intensely disliked president since Hoover. His children will carry the burden of his name. He will never be happy in his own skin. But the damage he will do to our country — who knows? His supporters voted for change, and boy, are they going to get it.

Back to real life. I went up to my home town the other day and ran into my gym teacher, Stan Nelson, looking good at 96. He commanded a landing craft at Normandy on June 6, 1944, and never said a word about it back then, just made us do chin-ups whether we wanted to or not. I saw my biology teacher Lyle Bradley, a Marine pilot in the Korean War, still going bird-watching in his 90s. I was not a good student then, but I am studying both of them now. They have seen it all and are still optimistic. The past year of politics has taught us absolutely nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. The future is scary. Let the uneducated have their day. I am now going to pay more attention to the teachers." Copyright Washington Post 2016

"He's been divorced and remarried. He can't commit to anything.""He's dangerously ignorant about international affairs. The Russian leaders will walk all over him.""He has no filter doesn't think before he speaks.”"Until recently, he was a Democrat. He's not a real Republican. He hasn't paid his GOP dues.""He used to be Pro Choice. Now, suddenly he's Pro Life?""That can't be his real hair!""He's a loose cannon. No one wants HIS finger on the nuclear button.""His opponent has the experience and political savvy to be president. He does not.""He's just not presidential.""His temperament disqualifies him from ever being Commander-In-Chief.""He's proven himself to be mentally unstable.""The military will never accept him as Commander-In-Chief. He's not smart enough.""The GOP doesn't want him to be the head of the party. He could never reach across the aisle to get anything done.""Most Republican voters will just stay home rather than go out and vote for him.""Evangelicals will never support him.""He says '(Lets) Make America Great Again'. How dare he say we aren't still great?""His intellect is thinner than spit on a slate rock."After all his gaffs, he doubles down on them instead of admitting he made a mistake.""He's threatening to upend our treaties and relationships with our allies by demanding that they pay for their own defense!""Because of his gross factual errors he might take rash action and needlessly lead this country into open warfare!""He's racist, xenophobic, and fuels the fires of hatred!""The rising turnout of his voters are not loyal Republicans or Democrats and are alienated from both parties because neither takes a sympathetic view toward their issues."The fact that he could be deemed a serious candidate for president is a shame and embarrassment for the country."Is he Safe? ...he shoots from the hip ... he's over his head ... What are his solutions?"Voters want to follow some authority figure, a leader who can take charge with authority; return a sense of discipline to our government; and, manifest the willpower needed to get this country back on track -- Or at least a leader from outside Washington,”

*******************************

Sound familiar? You've heard this all about Donald Trump, right?Try Again. All this was said of Ronald Reagan in 1976 and 1980. Most of it was BY OTHER REPUBLICANS.

Reagan acted the presidency very well. Alot of it however was just appearing tobe presidential. A closer look at hispresidency reveals that he made lotsof mistakes in many areas. There isan unfortunate tendency in the USto make all past presidents lookbetter than they really were.

Reagan acted the presidency very well. Alot of it however was just appearing tobe presidential. A closer look at hispresidency reveals that he made lotsof mistakes in many areas. There isan unfortunate tendency in the USto make all past presidents lookbetter than they really were.

As opposed to Richard Nixon, who did a lot of good things, but is onlyremembered for the bad?

All Presidents make lots of mistakes. Nobody can make correct decisionsall the time, and some of the bad decisions have been erased or reducedby history and/or popular opinion (e.g. the Bay of Pigs, Johnson'sBillie Sol Estes scandal).

One thing Reagan did have was a great rhetorical power. He madeAmericans feel good about themselves, he was clear and plainspoken, andhe was able to project emotions to his listeners. The advantage ofthis talent is immeasurable when it comes to leadership.

Reagan acted the presidency very well. Alot of it however was just appearing tobe presidential. A closer look at hispresidency reveals that he made lotsof mistakes in many areas. There isan unfortunate tendency in the USto make all past presidents lookbetter than they really were.

As opposed to Richard Nixon, who did a lot ofgood things, but is only remembered for the bad?

Because the bad things Nixon did were enormouslybad and had consequences that are still hauntingus today -- like the cancellation of the BrettonWoods agreement and revoking the gold standard.This is one of the reasons America is no longer"great"!

Reagan acted the presidency very well. Alot of it however was just appearing tobe presidential. A closer look at hispresidency reveals that he made lotsof mistakes in many areas. There isan unfortunate tendency in the USto make all past presidents lookbetter than they really were.

As opposed to Richard Nixon, who did a lot ofgood things, but is only remembered for the bad?

Because the bad things Nixon did were enormouslybad and had consequences that are still hauntingus today -- like the cancellation of the BrettonWoods agreement and revoking the gold standard.This is one of the reasons America is no longer"great"!

Wow, dk, you want to go back to gold?! You're even more conservativethan I could have ever imagined!

Reagan acted the presidency very well. Alot of it however was just appearing tobe presidential. A closer look at hispresidency reveals that he made lotsof mistakes in many areas. There isan unfortunate tendency in the USto make all past presidents lookbetter than they really were.

As opposed to Richard Nixon, who did a lot ofgood things, but is only remembered for the bad?

Because the bad things Nixon did were enormouslybad and had consequences that are still hauntingus today -- like the cancellation of the BrettonWoods agreement and revoking the gold standard.This is one of the reasons America is no longer"great"!

Wow, dk, you want to go back to gold?!

Not necessarily.Platinum would also do! ;-)

Post by OYou're even more conservativethan I could have ever imagined!

I am not conservative at all.Just pragmatic. A reliablemonetary system has to bebased on a reference thatcannot be manipulated likeprinted paper. That is all.

Reagan acted the presidency very well. Alot of it however was just appearing tobe presidential. A closer look at hispresidency reveals that he made lotsof mistakes in many areas. There isan unfortunate tendency in the USto make all past presidents lookbetter than they really were.

As opposed to Richard Nixon, who did a lot ofgood things, but is only remembered for the bad?

Because the bad things Nixon did were enormouslybad and had consequences that are still hauntingus today -- like the cancellation of the BrettonWoods agreement and revoking the gold standard.This is one of the reasons America is no longer"great"!

Wow, dk, you want to go back to gold?!

Not necessarily.Platinum would also do! ;-)

Post by OYou're even more conservativethan I could have ever imagined!

I am not conservative at all.Just pragmatic. A reliablemonetary system has to bebased on a reference thatcannot be manipulated likeprinted paper. That is all.

Except Richard Nixon realized back then that there wasn't enough goldin Fort Knox, etc. to cover all the paper money printed. In fact, nopaper money in the world issued by a government backs it 100% in gold.You could always move to Lebanon or Mongolia, to get the most stablecurrency, If one just judged currency by how much of it was backed byprecious metals.

Post by OExcept Richard Nixon realized back then that there wasn't enough goldin Fort Knox, etc. to cover all the paper money printed. In fact, nopaper money in the world issued by a government backs it 100% in gold.

That's incorrect. There is always enough gold, the matter of covering only depends at what price it's set at. FDR hiked the price of gold from $20 to $35 so he could increase dollar supply. Nixon removed the final constraint. Check out a chart of the overall collapse of the dollar since '71 and the horrific fall in living standards since then. We view women joining the work force as a beautiful thing--in more ways than one--but it's also a sign of the fall in purchasing power and living standards that we now need 2+ people working to sustain a household.

Post by OExcept Richard Nixon realized back then that there wasn't enough goldin Fort Knox, etc. to cover all the paper money printed. In fact, nopaper money in the world issued by a government backs it 100% in gold.

That's incorrect. There is always enough gold, the matter of coveringonly depends at what price it's set at. FDR hiked the price of goldfrom $20 to $35 so he could increase dollar supply. Nixon removed thefinal constraint. Check out a chart of the overall collapse of thedollar since '71 and the horrific fall in living standards sincethen. We view women joining the work force as a beautiful thing--in more ways than one--but it's also a sign of the fall in purchasingpower and living standards that we now need 2+ people working tosustain a household.

No one should have to work to sustain ahousehold. Just look at Donald Trump! ;-)

Reagan acted the presidency very well. Alot of it however was just appearing tobe presidential. A closer look at hispresidency reveals that he made lotsof mistakes in many areas. There isan unfortunate tendency in the USto make all past presidents lookbetter than they really were.

As opposed to Richard Nixon, who did a lot ofgood things, but is only remembered for the bad?

Because the bad things Nixon did were enormouslybad and had consequences that are still hauntingus today -- like the cancellation of the BrettonWoods agreement and revoking the gold standard.This is one of the reasons America is no longer"great"!

Wow, dk, you want to go back to gold?!

Not necessarily.Platinum would also do! ;-)

Post by OYou're even more conservativethan I could have ever imagined!

I am not conservative at all.Just pragmatic. A reliablemonetary system has to bebased on a reference thatcannot be manipulated likeprinted paper. That is all.

Not so fast, the facts are a littlemore complicated. The US was runningout of gold having depleted its goldore resources, while Russia, Canadaand South Africa were sitting onapparently inexhaustible piles ofgold. This could have given themthe ability to control/manipulatethe US dollar had they wanted toact in a hostile manner. This isthe real reason Nixon unilaterallyrevoked the Bretton-Woods accord,not the amount of gold actuallyheld in Fort Knox at the time.

Post by dkNot so fast, the facts are a littlemore complicated. The US was runningout of gold having depleted its goldore resources, while Russia, Canadaand South Africa were sitting onapparently inexhaustible piles ofgold. This could have given themthe ability to control/manipulatethe US dollar had they wanted toact in a hostile manner. This isthe real reason Nixon unilaterallyrevoked the Bretton-Woods accord,not the amount of gold actuallyheld in Fort Knox at the time.

Interesting.... So what should Nixon have done, given the threatsyou've alluded to?

Post by dkNot so fast, the facts are a littlemore complicated. The US was runningout of gold having depleted its goldore resources, while Russia, Canadaand South Africa were sitting onapparently inexhaustible piles ofgold. This could have given themthe ability to control/manipulatethe US dollar had they wanted toact in a hostile manner. This isthe real reason Nixon unilaterallyrevoked the Bretton-Woods accord,not the amount of gold actuallyheld in Fort Knox at the time.

Interesting.... So what should Nixonhave done, given the threats you'vealluded to?

Reagan acted the presidency very well. Alot of it however was just appearing tobe presidential. A closer look at hispresidency reveals that he made lotsof mistakes in many areas. There isan unfortunate tendency in the USto make all past presidents lookbetter than they really were.

As opposed to Richard Nixon, who did a lot ofgood things, but is only remembered for the bad?

Because the bad things Nixon did were enormouslybad and had consequences that are still hauntingus today -- like the cancellation of the BrettonWoods agreement and revoking the gold standard.This is one of the reasons America is no longer"great"!

Wow, dk, you want to go back to gold?!

Not necessarily.Platinum would also do! ;-)

Post by OYou're even more conservativethan I could have ever imagined!

I am not conservative at all.Just pragmatic. A reliablemonetary system has to bebased on a reference thatcannot be manipulated likeprinted paper. That is all.dk

The classical objection to the gold standard is that theinability to find new gold could hinder the ability of theeconomy to grow. I don't know how to compare this risk withthat of the government debasing a fiat currency in order toget more purchasing power for itself.

Reagan acted the presidency very well. Alot of it however was just appearing tobe presidential. A closer look at hispresidency reveals that he made lotsof mistakes in many areas. There isan unfortunate tendency in the USto make all past presidents lookbetter than they really were.

As opposed to Richard Nixon, who did a lot ofgood things, but is only remembered for the bad?

Because the bad things Nixon did were enormouslybad and had consequences that are still hauntingus today -- like the cancellation of the BrettonWoods agreement and revoking the gold standard.This is one of the reasons America is no longer"great"!

Wow, dk, you want to go back to gold?!

Not necessarily.Platinum would also do! ;-)

Post by OYou're even more conservativethan I could have ever imagined!

I am not conservative at all.Just pragmatic. A reliablemonetary system has to bebased on a reference thatcannot be manipulated likeprinted paper. That is all.

The classical objection to the gold standard is that theinability to find new gold could hinder the ability of theeconomy to grow. I don't know how to compare this risk withthat of the government debasing a fiat currency in order toget more purchasing power for itself.

Yes we all know that. And we all know what happenswhen one moves to fiat money. Take your pick.

Reagan acted the presidency very well. A lotof it however was just appearing to bepresidential. A closer look at his presidencyreveals that he made lots of mistakes in manyareas. There is an unfortunate tendency inthe US to make all past presidents lookbetter than they really were.

As opposed to Richard Nixon, who did a lot ofgood things, but is only remembered for thebad?

Because the bad things Nixon did were enormouslybad and had consequences that are still hauntingus today -- like the cancellation of the BrettonWoods agreement and revoking the gold standard.This is one of the reasons America is no longer"great"!

Wow, dk, you want to go back to gold?!

Not necessarily. Platinum would also do! ;-)

You're even more conservative than I could haveever imagined!

I am not conservative at all. Just pragmatic. Areliable monetary system has to be based on areference that cannot be manipulated like printedpaper. That is all.

The classical objection to the gold standard is thatthe inability to find new gold could hinder the abilityof the economy to grow. I don't know how to comparethis risk with that of the government debasing a fiatcurrency in order to get more purchasing power foritself.

Yes we all know that. And we all know what happens whenone moves to fiat money. Take your pick.dk

Well we do have a largely independent (thank God) monetaryauthority, that unfortunately (IMO) has a dual mandate oflimiting inflation while also limiting unemployment.

Post by Frank BergerThe classical objection to the gold standard is that theinability to find new gold could hinder the ability of theeconomy to grow. I don't know how to compare this risk withthat of the government debasing a fiat currency in order toget more purchasing power for itself.

The act of increasing the gold reserves through your own mining is not necessary for the furtherance of credit if you simply revalue the price of gold. It is a way of devaluing, and in FDR's time it simultaneously brought in foreign gold to be stored. Price change as always changes behaviour. Even today there is still the possibility to revalue gold if the US wants to suddenly import inflation.

Speaking of that, I think Trump will do very well in some ways, but at some point I think he'll have a problem related to a fall in the value of the dollar. I don't know much about bonds, but already they are selling off hard. It might not be a funding crisis per se as there can always be further easing, but I'm pretty confident that later this decade we will see a marked decline in dollar value, something like a reckoning point of years of debt and easing and past failure to spend wisely on things like infrastructure. You sometimes hear this sort of warning from a gold-storing loony. Actually you get the sense they are hoping for it. It does have a base in sound reasoning when the conditions and policies meet though.

If this does happen, it will of course be pinned on the poor orange bugger, but in truth it won't be his fault as it's something that's been long-building over decades. He would just be the trigger for it.

Post by Frank BergerThe classical objection to the gold standard is that theinability to find new gold could hinder the ability of theeconomy to grow. I don't know how to compare this risk withthat of the government debasing a fiat currency in order toget more purchasing power for itself.

The act of increasing the gold reserves through your own miningis not necessary for the furtherance of credit if you simplyrevalue the price of gold. It is a way of devaluing, and inFDR's time it simultaneously brought in foreign gold to bestored. Price change as always changes behaviour. Even todaythere is still the possibility to revalue gold if the US wantsto suddenly import inflation.

One should not rule this out.

Post by TonySpeaking of that, I think Trump will do very well in some ways,

Build more hotels and casinos? ;-)

Post by Tonybut at some point I think he'll have a problem related to a fallin the value of the dollar. I don't know much about bonds, butalready they are selling off hard. It might not be a fundingcrisis per se as there can always be further easing, but I'mpretty confident that later this decade we will see a markeddecline in dollar value, something like a reckoning point ofyears of debt and easing and past failure to spend wisely onthings like infrastructure. You sometimes hear this sort ofwarning from a gold-storing loony. Actually you get the sensethey are hoping for it. It does have a base in sound reasoningwhen the conditions and policies meet though.

It remains to be seen which economy goes down the drain fasterthan the others. US's? Japan's? EU's? Britain's? China's?

Post by TonyIf this does happen, it will of course be pinned on the poororange bugger, but in truth it won't be his fault as it'ssomething that's been long-building over decades. He wouldjust be the trigger for it.

Fair enough, however he should not promise to fix things thatcannot be fixed. America is no longer "great" in the meaninghe seems to imply simply because it no longer has a commandingeconomical/financial/industrial/manufacturing lead over therest of the world, as was the case between roughly 1930 and1970. This is not fixable.

America has not been great for many years , since the Eisenhower years in fact, with a few exceptions. Myopic, exclusionary, fearing fear itself,self-centered hubris and hedonism , no great men as in 1776 . We have become a Country of Ted Nugents rather than Bernie Sanders.

The real question is whether the World can be made great . The answer will depend on more than the USA, no Marshall Plan this time.

Post by Frank BergerThe classical objection to the gold standard is thatthe inability to find new gold could hinder theability of the economy to grow. I don't know how tocompare this risk with that of the governmentdebasing a fiat currency in order to get morepurchasing power for itself.

The act of increasing the gold reserves through yourown mining is not necessary for the furtherance ofcredit if you simply revalue the price of gold. It isa way of devaluing, and in FDR's time itsimultaneously brought in foreign gold to be stored.Price change as always changes behaviour. Even todaythere is still the possibility to revalue gold if theUS wants to suddenly import inflation.

One should not rule this out.

Speaking of that, I think Trump will do very well insome ways,

Build more hotels and casinos? ;-)

but at some point I think he'll have a problem relatedto a fall in the value of the dollar. I don't knowmuch about bonds, but already they are selling offhard. It might not be a funding crisis per se as therecan always be further easing, but I'm pretty confidentthat later this decade we will see a marked decline indollar value, something like a reckoning point ofyears of debt and easing and past failure to spendwisely on things like infrastructure. You sometimeshear this sort of warning from a gold-storing loony.Actually you get the sense they are hoping for it. Itdoes have a base in sound reasoning when the conditionsand policies meet though.

It remains to be seen which economy goes down the drainfaster than the others. US's? Japan's? EU's? Britain's?China's?

If this does happen, it will of course be pinned onthe poor orange bugger, but in truth it won't be hisfault as it's something that's been long-building overdecades. He would just be the trigger for it.

Fair enough, however he should not promise to fix thingsthat cannot be fixed. America is no longer "great" inthe meaning he seems to imply simply because it no longerhas a commandingeconomical/financial/industrial/manufacturing lead overthe rest of the world, as was the case between roughly1930 and 1970. This is not fixable.dk

Well, he didn't say "greatest," he said "great."Personally, I don't even know what that means. Or rather, Iknow what I would consider a "great" country to be. But thevery political spectrum we have essentially means that wedon't all have the same view of what "great" means. And itisn't just that we have different ideas of how to get there.

Post by Frank BergerThe classical objection to the gold standard is thatthe inability to find new gold could hinder theability of the economy to grow. I don't know how tocompare this risk with that of the governmentdebasing a fiat currency in order to get morepurchasing power for itself.

The act of increasing the gold reserves through yourown mining is not necessary for the furtherance ofcredit if you simply revalue the price of gold. It isa way of devaluing, and in FDR's time itsimultaneously brought in foreign gold to be stored.Price change as always changes behaviour. Even todaythere is still the possibility to revalue gold if theUS wants to suddenly import inflation.

One should not rule this out.

Speaking of that, I think Trump will do very well insome ways,

Build more hotels and casinos? ;-)

but at some point I think he'll have a problem relatedto a fall in the value of the dollar. I don't knowmuch about bonds, but already they are selling offhard. It might not be a funding crisis per se as therecan always be further easing, but I'm pretty confidentthat later this decade we will see a marked decline indollar value, something like a reckoning point ofyears of debt and easing and past failure to spendwisely on things like infrastructure. You sometimeshear this sort of warning from a gold-storing loony.Actually you get the sense they are hoping for it. Itdoes have a base in sound reasoning when the conditionsand policies meet though.

It remains to be seen which economy goes down the drainfaster than the others. US's? Japan's? EU's? Britain's?China's?

If this does happen, it will of course be pinned onthe poor orange bugger, but in truth it won't be hisfault as it's something that's been long-building overdecades. He would just be the trigger for it.

Fair enough, however he should not promise to fix thingsthat cannot be fixed. America is no longer "great" inthe meaning he seems to imply simply because it no longerhas a commandingeconomical/financial/industrial/manufacturing lead overthe rest of the world, as was the case between roughly1930 and 1970. This is not fixable.dk

Well, he didn't say "greatest," he said "great."Personally, I don't even know what that means. Or rather, Iknow what I would consider a "great" country to be. But thevery political spectrum we have essentially means that wedon't all have the same view of what "great" means. And itisn't just that we have different ideas of how to get there.

At this point in time, I would say that a great country solves/prevents problems rather than creates them.

Post by Frank BergerThe classical objection to the gold standard is thatthe inability to find new gold could hinder theability of the economy to grow. I don't know how tocompare this risk with that of the governmentdebasing a fiat currency in order to get morepurchasing power for itself.

The act of increasing the gold reserves through yourown mining is not necessary for the furtherance ofcredit if you simply revalue the price of gold. It isa way of devaluing, and in FDR's time itsimultaneously brought in foreign gold to be stored.Price change as always changes behaviour. Even todaythere is still the possibility to revalue gold if theUS wants to suddenly import inflation.

One should not rule this out.

Speaking of that, I think Trump will do very well insome ways,

Build more hotels and casinos? ;-)

but at some point I think he'll have a problem relatedto a fall in the value of the dollar. I don't knowmuch about bonds, but already they are selling offhard. It might not be a funding crisis per se as therecan always be further easing, but I'm pretty confidentthat later this decade we will see a marked decline indollar value, something like a reckoning point ofyears of debt and easing and past failure to spendwisely on things like infrastructure. You sometimeshear this sort of warning from a gold-storing loony.Actually you get the sense they are hoping for it. Itdoes have a base in sound reasoning when the conditionsand policies meet though.

It remains to be seen which economy goes down the drainfaster than the others. US's? Japan's? EU's? Britain's?China's?

If this does happen, it will of course be pinned onthe poor orange bugger, but in truth it won't be hisfault as it's something that's been long-building overdecades. He would just be the trigger for it.

Fair enough, however he should not promise to fix thingsthat cannot be fixed. America is no longer "great" inthe meaning he seems to imply simply because it no longerhas a commandingeconomical/financial/industrial/manufacturing lead overthe rest of the world, as was the case between roughly1930 and 1970. This is not fixable.

Well, he didn't say "greatest," he said "great."Personally, I don't even know what that means. Or rather, Iknow what I would consider a "great" country to be. But thevery political spectrum we have essentially means that wedon't all have the same view of what "great" means. And itisn't just that we have different ideas of how to get there.

At this point in time, I would say that a great countrysolves/prevents problems rather than creates them. And agreat country creates order out of chaos, not vice versa.

Post by Frank BergerThe classical objection to the gold standard is thatthe inability to find new gold could hinder theability of the economy to grow. I don't know how tocompare this risk with that of the governmentdebasing a fiat currency in order to get morepurchasing power for itself.

The act of increasing the gold reserves through yourown mining is not necessary for the furtherance ofcredit if you simply revalue the price of gold. It isa way of devaluing, and in FDR's time itsimultaneously brought in foreign gold to be stored.Price change as always changes behaviour. Even todaythere is still the possibility to revalue gold if theUS wants to suddenly import inflation.

One should not rule this out.

Speaking of that, I think Trump will do very well insome ways,

Build more hotels and casinos? ;-)

but at some point I think he'll have a problem relatedto a fall in the value of the dollar. I don't knowmuch about bonds, but already they are selling offhard. It might not be a funding crisis per se as therecan always be further easing, but I'm pretty confidentthat later this decade we will see a marked decline indollar value, something like a reckoning point ofyears of debt and easing and past failure to spendwisely on things like infrastructure. You sometimeshear this sort of warning from a gold-storing loony.Actually you get the sense they are hoping for it. Itdoes have a base in sound reasoning when the conditionsand policies meet though.

It remains to be seen which economy goes down the drainfaster than the others. US's? Japan's? EU's? Britain's?China's?

If this does happen, it will of course be pinned onthe poor orange bugger, but in truth it won't be hisfault as it's something that's been long-building overdecades. He would just be the trigger for it.

Fair enough, however he should not promise to fix thingsthat cannot be fixed. America is no longer "great" inthe meaning he seems to imply simply because it no longerhas a commandingeconomical/financial/industrial/manufacturing lead overthe rest of the world, as was the case between roughly1930 and 1970. This is not fixable.

Well, he didn't say "greatest," he said "great."Personally, I don't even know what that means. Or rather, Iknow what I would consider a "great" country to be. But thevery political spectrum we have essentially means that wedon't all have the same view of what "great" means. And itisn't just that we have different ideas of how to get there.

At this point in time, I would say that a great countrysolves/prevents problems rather than creates them. And agreat country creates order out of chaos, not vice versa.

Post by Frank BergerThe classical objection to the gold standard is thatthe inability to find new gold could hinder theability of the economy to grow. I don't know how tocompare this risk with that of the governmentdebasing a fiat currency in order to get morepurchasing power for itself.

The act of increasing the gold reserves through yourown mining is not necessary for the furtherance ofcredit if you simply revalue the price of gold. It isa way of devaluing, and in FDR's time itsimultaneously brought in foreign gold to be stored.Price change as always changes behaviour. Even todaythere is still the possibility to revalue gold if theUS wants to suddenly import inflation.

One should not rule this out.

Speaking of that, I think Trump will do very well insome ways,

Build more hotels and casinos? ;-)

but at some point I think he'll have a problem relatedto a fall in the value of the dollar. I don't knowmuch about bonds, but already they are selling offhard. It might not be a funding crisis per se as therecan always be further easing, but I'm pretty confidentthat later this decade we will see a marked decline indollar value, something like a reckoning point ofyears of debt and easing and past failure to spendwisely on things like infrastructure. You sometimeshear this sort of warning from a gold-storing loony.Actually you get the sense they are hoping for it. Itdoes have a base in sound reasoning when the conditionsand policies meet though.

It remains to be seen which economy goes down the drainfaster than the others. US's? Japan's? EU's? Britain's?China's?

If this does happen, it will of course be pinned onthe poor orange bugger, but in truth it won't be hisfault as it's something that's been long-building overdecades. He would just be the trigger for it.

Fair enough, however he should not promise to fix thingsthat cannot be fixed. America is no longer "great" inthe meaning he seems to imply simply because it no longerhas a commandingeconomical/financial/industrial/manufacturing lead overthe rest of the world, as was the case between roughly1930 and 1970. This is not fixable.

Well, he didn't say "greatest," he said "great."Personally, I don't even know what that means. Or rather, Iknow what I would consider a "great" country to be. But thevery political spectrum we have essentially means that wedon't all have the same view of what "great" means. And itisn't just that we have different ideas of how to get there.

At this point in time, I would say that a great countrysolves/prevents problems rather than creates them. And agreat country creates order out of chaos, not vice versa.

Post by Frank BergerThe classical objection to the gold standard is thatthe inability to find new gold could hinder theability of the economy to grow. I don't know how tocompare this risk with that of the governmentdebasing a fiat currency in order to get morepurchasing power for itself.

The act of increasing the gold reserves through yourown mining is not necessary for the furtherance ofcredit if you simply revalue the price of gold. It isa way of devaluing, and in FDR's time itsimultaneously brought in foreign gold to be stored.Price change as always changes behaviour. Even todaythere is still the possibility to revalue gold if theUS wants to suddenly import inflation.

One should not rule this out.

Speaking of that, I think Trump will do very well insome ways,

Build more hotels and casinos? ;-)

but at some point I think he'll have a problem relatedto a fall in the value of the dollar. I don't knowmuch about bonds, but already they are selling offhard. It might not be a funding crisis per se as therecan always be further easing, but I'm pretty confidentthat later this decade we will see a marked decline indollar value, something like a reckoning point ofyears of debt and easing and past failure to spendwisely on things like infrastructure. You sometimeshear this sort of warning from a gold-storing loony.Actually you get the sense they are hoping for it. Itdoes have a base in sound reasoning when the conditionsand policies meet though.

It remains to be seen which economy goes down the drainfaster than the others. US's? Japan's? EU's? Britain's?China's?

If this does happen, it will of course be pinned onthe poor orange bugger, but in truth it won't be hisfault as it's something that's been long-building overdecades. He would just be the trigger for it.

Fair enough, however he should not promise to fix thingsthat cannot be fixed. America is no longer "great" inthe meaning he seems to imply simply because it no longerhas a commandingeconomical/financial/industrial/manufacturing lead overthe rest of the world, as was the case between roughly1930 and 1970. This is not fixable.

Well, he didn't say "greatest," he said "great."Personally, I don't even know what that means. Or rather, Iknow what I would consider a "great" country to be. But thevery political spectrum we have essentially means that wedon't all have the same view of what "great" means. And itisn't just that we have different ideas of how to get there.

At this point in time, I would say that a great countrysolves/prevents problems rather than creates them. And agreat country creates order out of chaos, not vice versa.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I am certainly no admirer of Hitler, but part of the problem of U.S. foreign policy makers is that:

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),

- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)

Didn't the rise of Hitler have to do with the Weimar gov't not being responsive enough to the needs of the 'deplorables'?

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),

OMG the ignorance.The US has spent decades propping up banana republic dictators.

Simply because if the US had not done that,the Russians, or the Chinese, would havepropped them up. Unfortunately some thingscan be zero sum games.

Aren't the Chinese propping up N. Korea?

Hard to tell. They certainly did initially.Right now the N Korean regime appears to becompletely out of control. More likely theChinese are keeping it on life support justto avoid mass famine and destruction.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),

OMG the ignorance.The US has spent decades propping up banana republic dictators.

...After getting rid of (e.g., assasinations, promotion of coups) legitimate leaders.- Conway was thirty-seven. He had been at Baskul for two years, in a job which now, in the light of events, could be regarded as a persistent backing of the wrong horse."Lost Horizon" (1933,Hilton)

Backing the wrong horse is still going on--this time in Syria:

- In short, the groups that the United States is funneling arms, money, and weapons to work directly, hand-in-hand, with alQaeda.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),

OMG the ignorance.The US has spent decades propping up banana republic dictators.

...After getting rid of (e.g., assasinations, promotion of coups) legitimate leaders.- Conway was thirty-seven. He had been at Baskul for two years, in a job which now, in the light of events, could be regarded as a persistent backing of the wrong horse."Lost Horizon" (1933,Hilton)

- In short, the groups that the United States is funneling arms, money, and weapons to work directly, hand-in-hand, with alQaeda.https://www.google.com/#q=%22in+short%2C+the+groups+that+the+United+States%22

According to the following recent article:

- People are not afraid to say this anymore. It is so obviously the right thing to do and unfortunately I will say it again, the United States must never put boots on the ground in the Middle East.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),

OMG the ignorance.The US has spent decades propping up banana republic dictators.

...After getting rid of (e.g., assasinations, promotion of coups) legitimate leaders.- Conway was thirty-seven. He had been at Baskul for two years, in a job which now, in the light of events, could be regarded as a persistent backing of the wrong horse."Lost Horizon" (1933,Hilton)

According to this article:

- What seems most painful to those with any real knowledge of the region is the apparent unwillingness of those in power in Washington to accept that in this vast region of the world the United States is wittingly or unwittingly stepping into the boots of earlier imperial powers, and that this cannot under any circumstances by a good thing and cannot possibly be “done right.”

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)Didn't the rise of Hitler have to do with the Weimar gov't not being responsive enough to the needs of the 'deplorables'?

Although we here are all for the arts, the glorification of the arts during the Weimar period should never distract from the voices of the 'deplorables' who finally spoke out in 1933 and 2016.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)Didn't the rise of Hitler have to do with the Weimar gov't not being responsive enough to the needs of the 'deplorables'?

Although we here are all for the arts, the glorification of the arts during the Weimar period should never distract from the voices of the 'deplorables' who finally spoke out in 1933 and 2016.

To paraphrase a former American president, could the 2016 deplorables have 'misoverestimated' what Trump can really do for them?:

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)Didn't the rise of Hitler have to do with the Weimar gov't not being responsive enough to the needs of the 'deplorables'?

According to this recent article:

- Fascism, as historian Gaetano Salvemini pointed out, is about “giving up free institutions.” It is the product of a democracy that has ceased to function. The democratic form will remain, much as it did during the dictatorships in the later part of the Roman Empire, but the reality is despotism, or in our case, corporate despotism. The citizen does not genuinely participate in power.

"It is very similar to late Weimar Germany,” Noam Chomsky told me with uncanny insight when I spoke with him six years ago. “The parallels are striking. There was also tremendous disillusionment with the parliamentary system...

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)

"Saddam Hussein should have been left to run Iraq, says CIA officer who interrogated him" (recent article):

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)...

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)...

According to this recent article:

- We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)...

According to this recent article:

- These same pro-war pundits that push for further intervention in Syria did the same thing when they manufactured consent for regime change in Iraq and Libya. By citing the corruption and humans rights abuses of those countries’ dictators, they helped manipulate popular consensus into supporting the toppling of those governments, which has in turn created more chaos in the Middle East and provided a haven for terrorist groups to thrive.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)...

- These same pro-war pundits that push for further intervention in Syria did the same thing when they manufactured consent for regime change in Iraq and Libya. By citing the corruption and humans rights abuses of those countries’ dictators, they helped manipulate popular consensus into supporting the toppling of those governments, which has in turn created more chaos in the Middle East and provided a haven for terrorist groups to thrive.http://observer.com/2017/02/war-hawks-push-intervention-syria-tulsi-gabbard/

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy. (Wouldn't the Syrians agree with that?),- Although Americans HATE tyrants and dictators with a vengeance, SOMETIMES the best way to bring about total anarchy is to automatically put a bulls-eye on the back of a tyrant or dictator. (Wouldn't the Iraqis agree with that?)

According to this recent article:

- Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition leaders adamantly rejected violence as a way to bring about reforms. They shared that it’s the Wahhabi jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, that pose the greatest threat to Syria and its history as a secular, pluralist, once-peaceful society. They continue to seek government reforms, but support the Syrian state over jihadist terrorist groups as they work to bring peace to Syria.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

- They can't seem to understand that the worst case scenario for a country is total anarchy...

According to this recent article:

- Some on the left worry we are seeing the rise of fascism, a new authoritarian age. That gets things exactly backward. The real fear in the Trump era should be that everything will become disorganized, chaotic, degenerate, clownish and incompetent.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

Post by g***@gmail.comI have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

This is correct. The Balfour Declaration promising a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, should Britain win WW1, was intended to persuade the New York Jewish bankers from pressuring the US to enter WW1 on the German side. These banking firms were also bankers to the German and Austrian governments.AntiSemitism had been whipped up for nationalist reasons in 19th century Hapsburg empire elections to divert attention from the original targets of unrest.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

According to the following recent article:

- ...Freud, who lived in turn-of-the-century Vienna while demagogues were scapegoating Jews and liberals for the mass suffering inflicted by industrial capitalism...

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

- ...Freud, who lived in turn-of-the-century Vienna while demagogues were scapegoating Jews and liberals for the mass suffering inflicted by industrial capitalism...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/welcome-age-anger-brexit-trump

I just saw this article about the populism now in Poland --one can getan idea of what might happen after such an election these days:

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

- ...Freud, who lived in turn-of-the-century Vienna while demagogues were scapegoating Jews and liberals for the mass suffering inflicted by industrial capitalism...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/welcome-age-anger-brexit-trump

I just saw this article about the populism now in Poland --one can gethttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-poland-a-window-on-what-happens-when-populists-come-to-power/2016/12/18/083577e8-c203-11e6-92e8-c07f4f671da4_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop&utm_term=.c20b25115f2dSounds awful for some, good for others.C.

Isn't this a rejection of modernity?:

- Sciences more generally would receive less time, in favor of more hours for Polish history.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

- ...Freud, who lived in turn-of-the-century Vienna while demagogues were scapegoating Jews and liberals for the mass suffering inflicted by industrial capitalism...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/welcome-age-anger-brexit-trump

I just saw this article about the populism now in Poland --one can gethttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-poland-a-window-on-what-happens-when-populists-come-to-power/2016/12/18/083577e8-c203-11e6-92e8-c07f4f671da4_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop&utm_term=.c20b25115f2dSounds awful for some, good for others.C.

- Sciences more generally would receive less time, in favor of more hours for Polish history."Polish scientists are aghast at proposed curriculum changes in a new education bill that would downplay evolution theory and climate change and add hours for “patriotic” history lessons. In a Facebook chat, a top equal rights official mused that Polish hotels should not be forced to provide service to black or gay customers. After the official stepped down for unrelated reasons, his successor rejected an international convention to combat violence against women because it appeared to argue against traditional gender roles.Over the weekend, Warsaw convulsed in street protests amid allegations that the Law and Justice party had illegally forced through a budget bill even as it sought to restrict media access to Parliament."

Though I do believe in balance, that leaves one a bit speechless.Hopefully civil rights are entrenched in a stable enough way to offset it.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

- ...Freud, who lived in turn-of-the-century Vienna while demagogues were scapegoating Jews and liberals for the mass suffering inflicted by industrial capitalism...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/welcome-age-anger-brexit-trump

I just saw this article about the populism now in Poland --one can gethttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-poland-a-window-on-what-happens-when-populists-come-to-power/2016/12/18/083577e8-c203-11e6-92e8-c07f4f671da4_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop&utm_term=.c20b25115f2dSounds awful for some, good for others.C.

- Sciences more generally would receive less time, in favor of more hours for Polish history."Polish scientists are aghast at proposed curriculum changes in a new education bill that would downplay evolution theory and climate change and add hours for “patriotic” history lessons. In a Facebook chat, a top equal rights official mused that Polish hotels should not be forced to provide service to black or gay customers. After the official stepped down for unrelated reasons, his successor rejected an international convention to combat violence against women because it appeared to argue against traditional gender roles.Over the weekend, Warsaw convulsed in street protests amid allegations that the Law and Justice party had illegally forced through a budget bill even as it sought to restrict media access to Parliament."

Though I do believe in balance, that leaves one a bit speechless.Hopefully civil rights are entrenched in a stable enough way to offset it.C.

As far as I am concerned, that is what happens when rather than work for the system, people come to feel that are now free to try to get the system to work for themselves.

That is why a strong leader who never loses sight of the long term common good is indispensable.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

- ...Freud, who lived in turn-of-the-century Vienna while demagogues were scapegoating Jews and liberals for the mass suffering inflicted by industrial capitalism...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/welcome-age-anger-brexit-trump

I just saw this article about the populism now in Poland --one can gethttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-poland-a-window-on-what-happens-when-populists-come-to-power/2016/12/18/083577e8-c203-11e6-92e8-c07f4f671da4_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop&utm_term=.c20b25115f2dSounds awful for some, good for others.C.

- Sciences more generally would receive less time, in favor of more hours for Polish history."Polish scientists are aghast at proposed curriculum changes in a new education bill that would downplay evolution theory and climate change and add hours for “patriotic” history lessons. In a Facebook chat, a top equal rights official mused that Polish hotels should not be forced to provide service to black or gay customers. After the official stepped down for unrelated reasons, his successor rejected an international convention to combat violence against women because it appeared to argue against traditional gender roles.Over the weekend, Warsaw convulsed in street protests amid allegations that the Law and Justice party had illegally forced through a budget bill even as it sought to restrict media access to Parliament."

Though I do believe in balance, that leaves one a bit speechless.Hopefully civil rights are entrenched in a stable enough way to offset it.C.

As far as I am concerned, that is what happens when rather than work for the system, people come to feel that are now free to try to get the system to work for themselves.That is why a strong leader who never loses sight of the long term common good is indispensable.

According to this recent article:

- ...When looking for the roots of modern western political thought, one cannot escape its authoritarian beginnings. Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to describe the Social Contract...

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

- ...Freud, who lived in turn-of-the-century Vienna while demagogues were scapegoating Jews and liberals for the mass suffering inflicted by industrial capitalism...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/welcome-age-anger-brexit-trump

I just saw this article about the populism now in Poland --one can gethttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-poland-a-window-on-what-happens-when-populists-come-to-power/2016/12/18/083577e8-c203-11e6-92e8-c07f4f671da4_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop&utm_term=.c20b25115f2dSounds awful for some, good for others.C.

- Sciences more generally would receive less time, in favor of more hours for Polish history."Polish scientists are aghast at proposed curriculum changes in a new education bill that would downplay evolution theory and climate change and add hours for “patriotic” history lessons. In a Facebook chat, a top equal rights official mused that Polish hotels should not be forced to provide service to black or gay customers. After the official stepped down for unrelated reasons, his successor rejected an international convention to combat violence against women because it appeared to argue against traditional gender roles.Over the weekend, Warsaw convulsed in street protests amid allegations that the Law and Justice party had illegally forced through a budget bill even as it sought to restrict media access to Parliament."

Though I do believe in balance, that leaves one a bit speechless.Hopefully civil rights are entrenched in a stable enough way to offset it.C.

When it comes to populism, just remember:

- Television is the first truly democratic culture--the first culture available to everybody and entirely governed by what the people want. The most terrifying thing is what people do want.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

- ...Freud, who lived in turn-of-the-century Vienna while demagogues were scapegoating Jews and liberals for the mass suffering inflicted by industrial capitalism...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/welcome-age-anger-brexit-trump

I just saw this article about the populism now in Poland --one can gethttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-poland-a-window-on-what-happens-when-populists-come-to-power/2016/12/18/083577e8-c203-11e6-92e8-c07f4f671da4_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop&utm_term=.c20b25115f2dSounds awful for some, good for others.C.

As far as I am concerned, the problem with the present situation in Poland is that there is no authority with the responsibility of thinking in terms of the long term common good.

Without such a person who can impose his will, the battle between varying interests will only intensify.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

- ...Freud, who lived in turn-of-the-century Vienna while demagogues were scapegoating Jews and liberals for the mass suffering inflicted by industrial capitalism...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/welcome-age-anger-brexit-trump

I just saw this article about the populism now in Poland --one can gethttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-poland-a-window-on-what-happens-when-populists-come-to-power/2016/12/18/083577e8-c203-11e6-92e8-c07f4f671da4_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop&utm_term=.c20b25115f2dSounds awful for some, good for others.C.

As far as I am concerned, the problem with the present situation in Poland is that there is no authority with the responsibility of thinking in terms of the long term common good.Without such a person who can impose his will, the battle between varying interests will only intensify.

- During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

According to this recent article:

- It was not, as is usually assumed, the pressure exerted by the National Socialist terror that brought regression, neutralization, and a funereal silence to the arts, for these phenomena had already taken shape in the Weimar Republic, and in liberal continental European society generally.

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

Concerning the anti-Semitism that existed before World War I:

- Delving into Mahler’s final years in New York, after the composer had left Vienna, where his daughter died and where anti-Semitism was growing...

sometimes they have to kill a couple of million people, but hey, you can't bake an omelet...

I have a vague recollection of having read that although anti-Semitism existed before World War I when Europe was composed of imperial governments, it became worse after WWI under the various newly created democratic governments which is a reason why Reiner left Europe (early 1920's) when he did.

If there is a recipe for creating stable and orderly societies, did the imperial governments provide the necessary ingredient?:

- Salt is the policeman of taste: it keeps the various flavors of a dish in order and restrains the stronger from tyrannizing over the weaker.

Post by g***@gmail.comIf there is a recipe for creating stable and orderlysocieties, did the imperial governments provide the

"Stable" and "orderly" do not guarantee freedom in anydegree.

Post by g***@gmail.com- Salt is the policeman of taste: it keeps the variousflavors of a dish in order and restrains the strongerfrom tyrannizing over the weaker.

Salt can also easily destroy the taste of dishes, andmake them all taste pretty much the same -- salty!dk

- Of course I have used dissonance in my time, but there has been too much dissonance. Bach used dissonance as good salt for his music. Others applied pepper, seasoned the dishes more and more highly, till all healthy appetites were sick and until the music was nothing but pepper.

Post by g***@gmail.comIf there is a recipe for creating stable and orderlysocieties, did the imperial governments provide the

"Stable" and "orderly" do not guarantee freedom in anydegree.

The following comment was made at the Youtube upload of Furtwangler's 1943 Brahms 4th:

- I cannot imagine what it must have been like to play while your country is falling to pieces around you, everyone in the street is scared to death, and half your loved ones are dead or missing. I believe Furtwangler and everyone under his baton ached to create salvation for the human souls around them. You can hear them yearning for peace.

- The sheer amount of lies perpetrated by the Anglo-American establishment against its public in order to preserve the myth that World War II was a 'good' war, won for a just cause, in incalculable.

That article ALSO says:

- In sum, the Allied elites have told a story. The story that the Germans have always been disturbers of the peace; they disturbed it once and were punished for it although a little too harshly. Out of such blundering castigation, an evil force materialized out of nowhere – a force whose evil greatly exceeded the petty severity of the Allies that caused such evil to emerge despite themselves. And, the story goes, the evil of this force grew to be such that a violent global conflict became necessary to uproot it.

- The sheer amount of lies perpetrated by the Anglo-American establishment against its public in order to preserve the myth that World War II was a 'good' war, won for a just cause, in incalculable.

- In sum, the Allied elites have told a story. The story that the Germans have always been disturbers of the peace; they disturbed it once and were punished for it although a little too harshly. Out of such blundering castigation, an evil force materialized out of nowhere – a force whose evil greatly exceeded the petty severity of the Allies that caused such evil to emerge despite themselves. And, the story goes, the evil of this force grew to be such that a violent global conflict became necessary to uproot it.More than a cock-and-bull story, this is an insult...

Here is a recent book review which may be of interest:

- Frankopan remarks on the hypocrisy of accusing Germany of empire building when empire maintenance was the goal of the European allies.

Post by Frank BergerThe classical objection to the gold standard is thatthe inability to find new gold could hinder theability of the economy to grow. I don't know how tocompare this risk with that of the governmentdebasing a fiat currency in order to get morepurchasing power for itself.

The act of increasing the gold reserves through yourown mining is not necessary for the furtherance ofcredit if you simply revalue the price of gold. It isa way of devaluing, and in FDR's time itsimultaneously brought in foreign gold to be stored.Price change as always changes behaviour. Even todaythere is still the possibility to revalue gold if theUS wants to suddenly import inflation.

One should not rule this out.

Speaking of that, I think Trump will do very well insome ways,

Build more hotels and casinos? ;-)

but at some point I think he'll have a problem relatedto a fall in the value of the dollar. I don't knowmuch about bonds, but already they are selling offhard. It might not be a funding crisis per se as therecan always be further easing, but I'm pretty confidentthat later this decade we will see a marked decline indollar value, something like a reckoning point ofyears of debt and easing and past failure to spendwisely on things like infrastructure. You sometimeshear this sort of warning from a gold-storing loony.Actually you get the sense they are hoping for it. Itdoes have a base in sound reasoning when the conditionsand policies meet though.

It remains to be seen which economy goes down the drainfaster than the others. US's? Japan's? EU's? Britain's?China's?

If this does happen, it will of course be pinned onthe poor orange bugger, but in truth it won't be hisfault as it's something that's been long-building overdecades. He would just be the trigger for it.

Fair enough, however he should not promise to fix thingsthat cannot be fixed. America is no longer "great" inthe meaning he seems to imply simply because it no longerhas a commandingeconomical/financial/industrial/manufacturing lead overthe rest of the world, as was the case between roughly1930 and 1970. This is not fixable.dk

Well, he didn't say "greatest," he said "great."Personally, I don't even know what that means. Or rather, Iknow what I would consider a "great" country to be. But thevery political spectrum we have essentially means that wedon't all have the same view of what "great" means. And itisn't just that we have different ideas of how to get there.

At this point in time, I would say that a great country solves/prevents problems rather than creates them.And a great country creates order out of chaos, not vice versa.

- In my youth I stressed freedom, and in my old age I stress order. I have made the great discovery that liberty is a product of order.

Post by dkFair enough, however he should not promise to fix things thatcannot be fixed. America is no longer "great" in the meaninghe seems to imply simply because it no longer has a commandingeconomical/financial/industrial/manufacturing lead over therest of the world, as was the case between roughly 1930 and1970. This is not fixable.dk

During the election (or primary), Trump briefly talked about restructuring the national debt. That implies defaulting to some extent. I think he was forced to drop this idea quickly. With him we just don't know. We don't even know what sort of team he's building. It's why I don't want to rush to an opinion. What it sounds like so far is he's going to cut taxes, cut regulations, cut existing medical agreements, and spend a lot to invest. I'm not sure how he's going to fund this.

Post by dkFair enough, however he should not promise to fix things thatcannot be fixed. America is no longer "great" in the meaninghe seems to imply simply because it no longer has a commandingeconomical/financial/industrial/manufacturing lead over therest of the world, as was the case between roughly 1930 and1970. This is not fixable.

During the election (or primary), Trump briefly talked aboutrestructuring the national debt. That implies defaulting tosome extent. I think he was forced to drop this idea quickly.With him we just don't know. We don't even know what sort ofteam he's building. It's why I don't want to rush to an opinion.What it sounds like so far is he's going to cut taxes, cutregulations, cut existing medical agreements, and spend alot to invest. I'm not sure how he's going to fund this.

Borrow a few trillion dollars, then claim them as capitallosses on his tax return ;-)

Post by TonyDuring the election (or primary), Trump briefly talked about restructuring the national debt. That implies defaulting to some extent. I think he was forced to drop this idea quickly. With him we just don't know. We don't even know what sort of team he's building. It's why I don't want to rush to an opinion. What it sounds like so far is he's going to cut taxes, cut regulations, cut existing medical agreements, and spend a lot to invest. I'm not sure how he's going to fund this.

Markets are up in expectation of greater spending. And the last 20 years of R administrations show that their concern about debt only lasts through the campaign.

Post by TonyDuring the election (or primary), Trump briefly talked about restructuring the national debt. That implies defaulting to some extent. I think he was forced to drop this idea quickly. With him we just don't know. We don't even know what sort of team he's building. It's why I don't want to rush to an opinion. What it sounds like so far is he's going to cut taxes, cut regulations, cut existing medical agreements, and spend a lot to invest. I'm not sure how he's going to fund this.

Markets are up in expectation of greater spending. And the last 20 years of R administrations show that their concern about debt only lasts through the campaign.

The amount of outstanding debt is not the real problem. Theproblem is excessive government spending as a share of thetotal economy. In other words the extent to which thegovernment redirects spending to its purposes from the thoseof the private sector. It doesn't matter much if thisspending is paid for by current taxes or borrowing (futuretaxes). Not that government spending should be zero. Butno one has figured out how to keep the federal governmentfrom growing its share excessively. Our Constitutionalchecks and balances (including "instransigence") helps some.

Post by TonyDuring the election (or primary), Trump briefly talked about restructuring the national debt. That implies defaulting to some extent. I think he was forced to drop this idea quickly. With him we just don't know. We don't even know what sort of team he's building. It's why I don't want to rush to an opinion. What it sounds like so far is he's going to cut taxes, cut regulations, cut existing medical agreements, and spend a lot to invest. I'm not sure how he's going to fund this.

Markets are up in expectation of greater spending. And the last 20 years of R administrations show that their concern about debt only lasts through the campaign.

The amount of outstanding debt is not the real problem. Theproblem is excessive government spending as a share of thetotal economy. In other words the extent to which thegovernment redirects spending to its purposes from the thoseof the private sector. It doesn't matter much if thisspending is paid for by current taxes or borrowing (futuretaxes). Not that government spending should be zero. Butno one has figured out how to keep the federal governmentfrom growing its share excessively. Our Constitutionalchecks and balances (including "intransigence") helps some.

Post by TonyDuring the election (or primary), Trump briefly talked about restructuring the national debt. That implies defaulting to some extent. I think he was forced to drop this idea quickly. With him we just don't know. We don't even know what sort of team he's building. It's why I don't want to rush to an opinion. What it sounds like so far is he's going to cut taxes, cut regulations, cut existing medical agreements, and spend a lot to invest. I'm not sure how he's going to fund this.

Markets are up in expectation of greater spending. And the last 20 years of R administrations show that their concern about debt only lasts through the campaign.

The amount of outstanding debt is not the real problem. Theproblem is excessive government spending as a share of thetotal economy. In other words the extent to which thegovernment redirects spending to its purposes from the thoseof the private sector. It doesn't matter much if thisspending is paid for by current taxes or borrowing (futuretaxes). Not that government spending should be zero. Butno one has figured out how to keep the federal governmentfrom growing its share excessively. Our Constitutionalchecks and balances (including "intransigence") helps some.

Post by TonyDuring the election (or primary), Trump briefly talked about restructuring the national debt. That implies defaulting to some extent. I think he was forced to drop this idea quickly. With him we just don't know. We don't even know what sort of team he's building. It's why I don't want to rush to an opinion. What it sounds like so far is he's going to cut taxes, cut regulations, cut existing medical agreements, and spend a lot to invest. I'm not sure how he's going to fund this.

Markets are up in expectation of greater spending. And the last 20 years of R administrations show that their concern about debt only lasts through the campaign.

The amount of outstanding debt is not the real problem. Theproblem is excessive government spending as a share of thetotal economy. In other words the extent to which thegovernment redirects spending to its purposes from the thoseof the private sector. It doesn't matter much if thisspending is paid for by current taxes or borrowing (futuretaxes). Not that government spending should be zero. Butno one has figured out how to keep the federal governmentfrom growing its share excessively. Our Constitutionalchecks and balances (including "intransigence") helps some.

?!? Isn't it government spending that creates the debt ?!?dk

Not per se. Government spending could, in principle, befunded entirely by current tax revenue. There would be nodebt at all.

Post by TonyDuring the election (or primary), Trump briefly talked about restructuring the national debt. That implies defaulting to some extent. I think he was forced to drop this idea quickly. With him we just don't know. We don't even know what sort of team he's building. It's why I don't want to rush to an opinion. What it sounds like so far is he's going to cut taxes, cut regulations, cut existing medical agreements, and spend a lot to invest. I'm not sure how he's going to fund this.

Markets are up in expectation of greater spending. And the last 20 years of R administrations show that their concern about debt only lasts through the campaign.

As Dick Cheney famously said, as W. was destroying Clinton's surplus, "Deficits don't matter." At least not when it's Republicans running them up.

Post by TonyDuring the election (or primary), Trump briefly talked about restructuring the national debt. That implies defaulting to some extent. I think he was forced to drop this idea quickly. With him we just don't know. We don't even know what sort of team he's building. It's why I don't want to rush to an opinion. What it sounds like so far is he's going to cut taxes, cut regulations, cut existing medical agreements, and spend a lot to invest. I'm not sure how he's going to fund this.

Markets are up in expectation of greater spending. And the last 20 years of R administrations show that their concern about debt only lasts through the campaign.

As Dick Cheney famously said, as W. was destroying Clinton's surplus, "Deficits don't matter." At least not when it's Republicans running them up.

Post by Bozo"So he won. The nation takes a deep breath. Raw ego and proud illiteracy have won out, and a severely learning-disabled man with a real character problem will be president

Like the Guardian during the election (and still now actually), I just cannot read this sort of tripe. The learning-disabled are the only-left-leaning-in-words media and news publications. In terms of appearance vs behaviour, they are very Clintonesque. There are some serious concerns about Trump, but 90% of what's written are assumptions --- not models working on theories, but just plain ego-driven assumptions with some party-based ones thrown in.

I understand why so many people loved hearing the media is corrupt and dishonest. It wasn't just their blind adherence to Clinton. It was in this vein:

Media: Mexicans, Muslims, illegals, black people and even foreigners will be punished for certain

Fact: Trump's wife is Slovenian, his workers are foreign, and he trades around the world (yes anyone can interpret this as sex and money, but that doesn't remove what it is).

I am not saying that media assumptions were or will be incorrect in these examples. I'm trying to say that the corruption was and is in the spin of fundamentally whitewashing core facts which affect the very crux of American life (at least in the first two examples). Trump worked a masterclass in tying Clinton and the media together. Frankly all the evidence proves he's right about that. Both Clinton and the media could have won this with less spin and more direct sincere communication.

Post by TonyFact: Trump's wife is Slovenian, his workers are foreign, and he trades around the world (yes anyone can interpret this as sex and money, but that doesn't remove what it is).

it's indeed a fact that Trump's wife hails from Slovenia, but if that negates the obvious xenophobia in Trump's campaign we're back to the "Some of my best friends are black" line - which Trump retooled into his mortifying "Where's my black fan?" at some rallies.

I don't know what "his workers are foreign" really means, but there are reports that he used to work with undocumented folks, whom he threatened with deportation if they wanted to get paid 100%.

Post by HermanI don't know what "his workers are foreign" really means, but there are reports that he used to work with undocumented folks, whom he threatened with deportation if they wanted to get paid 100%.

I don't want to be an apologist for him, as I also believe he's a harsh and even threatening businessman who wants to maximise profit, one of those guys whose main concern is to increase the share price. The third example was bad. I wanted to point out that the media I saw did not emphasise the death in the economy which drove a lot of Brexit and a lot of Trump voting. 4.9% unemployment is the headline number. Not or hardly mentioned are despairingly low participation, and a one-sided move from full-time to part-time jobs. I'm not there and can't see it, but to me all sub-headline news implies a moribund workforce. Tie that to the economy being the first or at least a top three concern, and you get something like this -- a leader who can bring jobs while dumping a lot of restrictions and ineffectual ties. If people have their living standards shrinking alarmingly, they'll have to respond somehow. That doesn't mean they're necessarily rednecks or racists or woman-haters.

The positive side of this is that a genuine and affirmative socialist-leaning left can emerge in the Democratic party. Bernie will be too old to lead it, probably, but someone else will come forward. Between dying living standards and automation, something like that should come out.

Post by HermanI don't know what "his workers are foreign" really means, but there are reports that he used to work with undocumented folks, whom he threatened with deportation if they wanted to get paid 100%.

I don't want to be an apologist for him, as I also believe he's a harsh and even threatening businessman who wants to maximise profit, one of those guys whose main concern is to increase the share price. The third example was bad. I wanted to point out that the media I saw did not emphasise the death in the economy which drove a lot of Brexit and a lot of Trump voting. 4.9% unemployment is the headline number. Not or hardly mentioned are despairingly low participation, and a one-sided move from full-time to part-time jobs. I'm not there and can't see it, but to me all sub-headline news implies a moribund workforce. Tie that to the economy being the first or at least a top three concern, and you get something like this -- a leader who can bring jobs while dumping a lot of restrictions and ineffectual ties. If people have their living standards shrinking alarmingly, they'll have to respond somehow. That doesn't mean they're necessarily rednecks or racists or woman-haters.The positive side of this is that a genuine and affirmative socialist-leaning left can emerge in the Democratic party. Bernie will be too old to lead it, probably, but someone else will come forward. Between dying living standards and automation, something like that should come out.